Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:09:57 05/31/99
Go up one level in this thread
On May 31, 1999 at 19:33:28, Melvin S. Schwartz wrote: [snip] >Hello Dr. Hyatt! > >Perhaps there is some confusion on what I'm looking for. First, I am not >interested in comparing dedicated computers. I am interseted in comparing >software programs - commercial software programs like Hiarcs, Fritz,Rebel, etc. >I've found at Shep's site he runs tournaments with programs such as listed >above, on equal hardware and at various time controls. I also personally >believe, and this may be just my opinion of all the members here, that comparing >programs on equal hardware is of the utmost importance if one wishes to know >which program deserves the consideration as being the best. Best in what sense? >If a program wins a >tournament at 40/2 - that's the only time control I'm interested in - then I >believe that program at that time should have the honor of being called the >best. Is this your definition of best? What about at correspondence chess rates, which requires even stronger ability? >As for ratings, I also believe testing programs on equal hardware is the >optimum way to achieve the most accurate results. What is the mathematical basis for theis claim? >I'm glad you responded even though we may disagree on some or all of the above. >I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere apologies at naming >you the author of a quote I have used. I guess you can call it a major >"BLUNDER". Once again, please accept my apology for making that terrible >mistake. Everybody makes mistakes. Owning up to them and moving on is the mark of a true lady or gentleman.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.